*1 Plaintiff has filed motions to compel, which the Honorable Sean F. Cox referred to the undersigned for hearing and determination. [ECF No. 52]. The parties are directed to carefully read and follow the remainder of this Order.

The Court will hold a hearing on June 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Prior to the hearing, the parties must meet and confer as required by E.D. Mich. LR 37.1. This meeting must be in person in the Eastern District of Michigan, and the parties must make a good faith effort to narrow the areas of disagreement. LR 37.1. Following the meeting, and by May 31, 2019, the parties must file a joint list of unresolved issues. This filing must list each unresolved discovery request, verbatim; followed by the original answer or objection, verbatim; followed by the requesting party’s argument why the response was insufficient or why any objection is without merit; followed by answering party’s argument why its response was sufficient or why any objection has merit. For example:

The parties' arguments must address relevance to a specific claim or defense, and the proportionality factors under Federal Rule of Civil Rule 26(b)(1).

Any argument about whether the requests for discovery are relevant to the “subject matter of the action” (rather than to a specific claim or defense), or are “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible discovery,” will be rejected. Cratty v. City of Wyandotte, 296 F. Supp.3d. 854, 858 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2017) (“[O]bjections that the requested evidence was not relevant to the ‘subject matter’ and would not ‘lead to admissible evidence’ refer to an outdated version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)”).[1]

Responding parties should keep in mind that the rules require specificity with respect to objections to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) & 34(b)(2). A party objecting to a request for production of documents as burdensome must submit affidavits or other evidence to substantiate its objections. In re Heparin Products Liab. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 399, 410-11 (N.D. Ohio 2011).

The parties are forewarned that the Court will not tolerate them unilaterally and unreasonably deciding that requested discovery is not relevant or discoverable under proportionality based solely on their own litigation position. See Lucas v. Protective Life Ins. Co., No. CIV.A.4:08CV00059-JH, 2010 WL 569743, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2010) (rejecting argument that underwriting materials were not discoverable based upon the insurer’s “unilateral decision that these other guidelines are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action”); Johnson v. Serenity Transp., Inc., No. 15-CV-02004-JSC, 2016 WL 6393521, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (“A party cannot unilaterally decide that there has been enough discovery on a given topic.”).

*2 Of final note, to the extent that a responding party claims privilege, it must provide a privilege log as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). It may also seek a protective order. See E.D. Mich. LR 26.4.

The responding party or parties need not file a brief in response to the motion to compel. Instead, the Court will rely on the joint list of unresolved issues ordered above. If the parties resolve all of the issues raised by the motions, they must submit a stipulation and order to cancel the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.